Criticisms of political correctness that are properly packaged and backed up and get over 10 points too aren’t a rare sight either. Come on Moldbug practically has a fan club among some high karma people here
I would say that Moldbug belongs more in the “Ideological dissent” and “Historical revisionism” area, not “Criticism of political correctness”. He has been really quite cautious and reserved when touching race (merely observing that genetic differences probably do affect people), has posted nothing inflammatory or provocative about gender relations, has come on record as a supporter of gay rights… The only provocation (not meaning “bad and mean”—although the concrete idea here is so, to me—just “deliberately contrarian”) from him in this area was his endorsement of people owning each other (“slavery”, by any definition).
(Unless your definition of “Political correctness” is “Opposition to liberalism”; mine is not.)
I don’t agree on his historical revisionism, it often strikes at the very heart of this kind of sentiment, consider for example his look at decolonization. But this isn’t what I was going for, as you point out Moldbug dosen’t focus on politically incorrect issues, but he does utterly demolish the institutions that give moral value and legitimacy to political correctness. He delegtimizies the social construct merely by diagnosing its adaptive purpose. One dosen’t need to disagree with any politically correct stance on a issue to oppose political correctness the process, much like I can think having opposable thumbs is neat yet not feel comfortable about letting natural selection shape us furtherr.
Moldbug may be wrong, but that’s irrelevant for our point. Many people here think he isn’t. Keeping his analysis of the modern world filed under true in one’s mind and still taking political correctness as seriously as it takes itself, seems a hard thing to do. Now obviously the people who are open to agreeing with Moldbug may not be the most PC bunch to begin with, so I may be wrong in seeing some causation here, but regardless of this, the correlation is robust.
as you point out Moldbug dosen’t focus on politically incorrect issues, but he does utterly demolish the institutions that give moral value and legitimacy to political correctness
Yes. (“Yes he attacks them”, not “Yes they’re evil and worthless”.) But certainly it’s not random chance that his views on daily life might mirror the “politically correct” ones (those developed in the 20th century, that is, like tolerating non-harmful alternate lifestyles); there’s likely some process—for example, Randian moral reasoning (I’m not saying he’s a Randian, or that it has any merit) - that lets one arriive at some of the same views without the institutions of political correctness like the universities. Knowing his (highly rationalist/anal retentive) style of thinking, he definitely has some source of moral value and legitimacy for his opinions, less-controversial ones included. If one opposes “PC the process” without substituting anything, how does one arrive at agreeing with “PC issues”?
Now obviously Moldbug may be wrong, but many people here think he isn’t.
Taboo “Moldbug” :D ; he’s reasonably original as a writer, but for any one of his opinions there’s a better-known individual that expressed it; he just merged them into a Grand Theory. Also, while indeed a significant proportion of LWers who talk politics might endorse the same views as him (I didn’t count heads), the LWers who talk politics are an insignificant proportion of the community.
P.S. While reading, my brain autocompletes the capitalized words “Grand Theory” to “Grand Theft Auto” :(
The LWers who talk politics are an insignificant proportion of the community.
Yes but I wasn’t saying they where a large fraction of the community.Recall what started this branch of the debate. I was implying they aren’t shunned, and they get quite a bit of karma since they often do a good job of arguing about their positions. Other LessWrongers aren’t short circuited by their arguments and hold them to fair rationalist standards. Which is what I would wish we could do on most mindkilling topics.
I would say that Moldbug belongs more in the “Ideological dissent” and “Historical revisionism” area, not “Criticism of political correctness”. He has been really quite cautious and reserved when touching race (merely observing that genetic differences probably do affect people), has posted nothing inflammatory or provocative about gender relations, has come on record as a supporter of gay rights… The only provocation (not meaning “bad and mean”—although the concrete idea here is so, to me—just “deliberately contrarian”) from him in this area was his endorsement of people owning each other (“slavery”, by any definition).
(Unless your definition of “Political correctness” is “Opposition to liberalism”; mine is not.)
I don’t agree on his historical revisionism, it often strikes at the very heart of this kind of sentiment, consider for example his look at decolonization. But this isn’t what I was going for, as you point out Moldbug dosen’t focus on politically incorrect issues, but he does utterly demolish the institutions that give moral value and legitimacy to political correctness. He delegtimizies the social construct merely by diagnosing its adaptive purpose. One dosen’t need to disagree with any politically correct stance on a issue to oppose political correctness the process, much like I can think having opposable thumbs is neat yet not feel comfortable about letting natural selection shape us furtherr.
Moldbug may be wrong, but that’s irrelevant for our point. Many people here think he isn’t. Keeping his analysis of the modern world filed under true in one’s mind and still taking political correctness as seriously as it takes itself, seems a hard thing to do. Now obviously the people who are open to agreeing with Moldbug may not be the most PC bunch to begin with, so I may be wrong in seeing some causation here, but regardless of this, the correlation is robust.
Yes. (“Yes he attacks them”, not “Yes they’re evil and worthless”.) But certainly it’s not random chance that his views on daily life might mirror the “politically correct” ones (those developed in the 20th century, that is, like tolerating non-harmful alternate lifestyles); there’s likely some process—for example, Randian moral reasoning (I’m not saying he’s a Randian, or that it has any merit) - that lets one arriive at some of the same views without the institutions of political correctness like the universities. Knowing his (highly rationalist/anal retentive) style of thinking, he definitely has some source of moral value and legitimacy for his opinions, less-controversial ones included. If one opposes “PC the process” without substituting anything, how does one arrive at agreeing with “PC issues”?
Taboo “Moldbug” :D ; he’s reasonably original as a writer, but for any one of his opinions there’s a better-known individual that expressed it; he just merged them into a Grand Theory. Also, while indeed a significant proportion of LWers who talk politics might endorse the same views as him (I didn’t count heads), the LWers who talk politics are an insignificant proportion of the community.
P.S. While reading, my brain autocompletes the capitalized words “Grand Theory” to “Grand Theft Auto” :(
Yes but I wasn’t saying they where a large fraction of the community. Recall what started this branch of the debate. I was implying they aren’t shunned, and they get quite a bit of karma since they often do a good job of arguing about their positions. Other LessWrongers aren’t short circuited by their arguments and hold them to fair rationalist standards. Which is what I would wish we could do on most mindkilling topics.